Alexander Murray v. Charming Betsy
| Decision Date | 01 February 1804 |
| Citation | 2 Cranch 64,2 L.Ed. 208,6 U.S. 64 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER MURRAY v. The Schooner CHARMING BETSY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Pennsylvania.
In the district court of Pennsylvania, a libel was filed by Alexander Murray, esquire, for himself and others, against the schooner Charming Betsy, founded on the act of congress passed the 27th of February 1800, (1 Story's Laws, 718,) entitled 'an act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependencies thereof.' The libel states that the schooner sailed from Baltimore after the passing of that act, owned, hired and employed by persons resident within the United States, or by citizens thereof resident elsewhere, bound to Guadaloupe, and was taken on the high seas on the first of June 1800, by the libellant then commander of the public armed ship the Constellation, pursuant to instructions given to him by the president of the United States; there being reason to suspect her to be engaged in a traffic or commerce contrary to the said act, &c.
The facts of the case are stated by the district judge in his decree as follows:
On or about the 10th of April 1800, the schooner, now called the Charming Betsy, but then called the Jane, sailed from Baltimore in the district of Maryland, an American bottom, duly registered according to law, belonging to citizens of, and resident in, the United States, and regularly documented with American papers; she was laden with a cargo belonging to citizens of the United States; her destination was first to St. Bartholomew's, where the captain had orders to effect a sale of both vessel and cargo; but if a sale of the schooner could not be effected at St. Bartholomew's, which was to be considered the 'primary object' of the voyage, the captain was to proceed to St. Thomas's with the vessel and such part of the flour as should be unsold, where he was to accomplish the sale. Although a sale of the cargo, consisting chiefly of flour, was effected at St. Bartholomew's, yet the vessel could not there be advantageously disposed of, and the captain proceeded, according to his instructions, to St. Thomas's, where a bona fide sale was accomplished by captain James Phillips, on behalf of the American owners, for a valuable consideration, to a certain Jared Shattuck, a resident merchant in the island of St. Thomas.
Jared Shattuck was born in Connecticut before the American revolution, and he had removed long before any differences with France, in his early youth, to the island of St. Thomas, where he served his apprenticeship, intermarried, opened a house of trade, owned sundry vessels; and, as was said, lands, which none but Danish subjects were competent to hold and possess. About the year 1796, he became a Danish burgher, invested with the privileges of a Danish subject, and owing allegiance to his Danish majesty.
It did not appear that Jared Shattuck ever returned to the United States to resume citizenship, but constantly resided, and had his domicil, both before and at the time of the purchase of the schooner Jane, at St. Thomas's. Although the schooner was armed and furnished with ammunition on her sailing from Baltimore, and the cannon, arms and stores were sold to Jared Shattuck, by a contract separate from that of the vessel; she was chiefly dismantled of these articles at St. Thomas's, a small part of the ammunition, and a trifling part of the small arms excepted. The name of the schooner was at St. Thomas's changed to that of the Charming Betsy, and she was documented with Danish papers, as the property of Jared Shattuck. So, being the bona fide property of Jared Shattuck, she took in a cargo belonging to him, and no other, as appeared by the papers found on board and delivered to this court.
She sailed, with the said cargo, from St. Thomas's on or about the 25th day of June 1800, commanded by a certain Thomas Wright a Danish burgher, and navigated according to the laws of Denmark, for aught that appeared to the contrary, bound to the island of Guadaloupe.
On or about the first of July last 1800, she was captured on her passage to Guadaloupe, by a French privateer, and a prize-master and seven or eight hands put on board: the Danish crew (except captain Wright, an old man and two boys), being taken off by the French privateer. On the 3d of the same July, she was boarded and taken possession of, by some of the officers and crew of the Constellation, under the orders of captain Murray, and sent into the port of St. Pierre, in Martinique, where she arrived on the 5th of the same month of July.
The Danish papers were on board, and except a process verbal, formed by the French, there were no other papers found.
The instructions of the president of the United States to captain Murray, comprehended the case of a vessel found in the possession of the French captors, but they seemed to intend a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States.
It did not appear that captain Murray had any knowledge of Jared Shattuck being a native of Connecticut, or of the United States, until so informed in Martinique.
The cargo of the schooner was sold by order of Captain Murray at Martinique, and she was ordered to the United States for adjudication. After her arrival in the port of Philadelphia, a libel was filed in the district court.
A claim to the vessel was filed by Jared Shattuck, and he also claimed damages for the capture and for the sale of the cargo at Martinique.
The district judge ordered the vessel to be restored; and in his decree proceeded to order the amount of sales of the cargo to be paid to the claimant or his lawful agent, together with costs and such damages as shall be assessed by the clerk of the court, who was directed to inquire into and report the amount thereof. And for this purpose the clerk was directed to associate with himself two intelligent merchants of the district, and duly inquire what damage Jared Shattuck, the owner of the schooner Charming Betsy and her cargo, had sustained, by reason of the premises. Should it be the opinion of the clerk and the assessors associated with him, that the officers and crew of the Constellation benefited the owner of the Charming Betsy by the rescue from the French captors, they should allow, in the adjustment, reasonable compensation for this service.
On the 15th of May following, upon the report of the clerk and assessors, a final decree was entered for $20,594.16 cents damages, with costs.
From this decree the libellant appealed to the circuit court, which adjudged, 'that the decree of the district court be affirmed so far as it directs restitution of the vessel and payment to the claimant, of the nett proceeds of the sale of the cargo in Martinique, deducting the cost and charges there, according to the account exhibited by captain Murray's agent, being one of the exhibits in this cause; and that the said decree be reversed for the residue, each party to pay his own costs, and one moiety of the custody and wharfage bills for keeping the vessel until restitution to the claimant.'
From this decree both parties appealed to the supreme court.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 70-114 intentionally omitted]
The Charming Betsy was an American built vessel, belonging to citizens of the United States, and sailed from Baltimore, under the name of the Jane, on the 10th of April 1800, with a cargo of flour for St. Bartholomew's; she was sent out for the purpose of being sold. The cargo was disposed of at St. Bartholomew's; but finding it impossible to sell the vessel at that place, the captain proceeded with her to the island of St. Thomas, where she was disposed of to Jared Shattuck, who changed her name to that of the Charming Betsy, and
having put on board her a cargo consisting of American produce, cleared her out as a Danish vessel for the island of Guadaloupe.
On her voyage she was captured by a French privateer, and eight hands were put on board for the purpose of taking her into Guadaloupe as a prize. She was afterwards recaptured by Captain Murray, commander of the Constellation frigate, and carried into Martinique. It appears that the captain of the Charming Betsy was not willing to be taken into that island; but when there, he claimed to have his vessel and cargo restored, as being the property of Jared Shattuck, a Danish burgher.
Jared Shattuck was born in the United States, but had removed to the island of St. Thomas while an infant, and was proved to have resided there ever since the year 1789 or 1790. He had been accustomed to carry on trade as a Danish subject, had married a wife and acquired real property in the island, and also taken the oath of allegiance to the crown of Denmark in 1797.
Considering him as an American citizen who was violating the law prohibiting all intercourse between the United States, and France or its dependencies, or the sale of the vessel as a mere cover to evade that law, captain Murray sold the cargo of the Charming Betsy, which consisted of American produce, in Martinique, and brought the vessel into the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled under what is termed the nonintercourse law. The vessel and cargo were claimed by the consul of Denmark as being the bona fide property of a Danish subject.
This cause came on to be heard before the judge for the district of Pennsylvania, who declared the seizure to be illegal, and that the vessel ought to be restored and the proceeds of the cargo paid to the claimant or his lawful agent, together with costs, and such damages as should be assessed by the clerk of the court, who was directed to inquire into and report the amount thereof; for which purpose he was also directed to associate with himself two intelligent merchants of the district, and duly inquire what damage Jared Shattuck had sustained by reason of the premises. If they should be of opinion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Defense
...3, § 552(b)(3), but rather that FOIA should be read to be consistent with the Geneva Conventions, see Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804) ("[A]n act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible const......
-
Maria v. McElroy
...to do so without distorting the statute. Filartiga v. PenaIrala, 630 F.2d 876, 887 n. 20 (2d Cir.1980) (quoting The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804)). See also Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 114 (1987) ("Where fairly possible, a United States stat......
-
O.A. v. Trump
...19 U.S.T. 6259, 6276, T.I.A.S. No. 6577 (1968); Cardoza–Fonseca , 480 U.S. at 428–29, 107 S.Ct. 1207 ; Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy , 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804) (holding that a statute "ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible c......
-
United States v. Ahmed
...that a statute should be read to avoid placing its constitutionality in doubt, (3) the presumption against extraterritoriality, (4) the Charming Betsy doctrine, and (5) the rule of lenity - are inapplicable because this statute is not ambiguous. United States v. Desposito, 704 F.3d 221, 226......
-
Local Governments Are Prohibited From Registering Official Insignias As Trademarks
...then argued that the denial of the District's trademark registration is a violation of the rule in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that "an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains." Slip op. a......
-
Chapter 15 Cross-Border Insolvency Means Comity And Cooperation; Not Necessarily Comedy And Concern
...upon a young nation the idea of judicial review in Madison v. Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804), tread softly into international law and held that "an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if ......
-
HOW CLEARLY DOES CONGRESS NEED TO WAIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CLEAR STATEMENT RULE.
...v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 868-89 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (panel denying writ of habeas corpus). (246) See Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804) ("[A]n act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains."); see also......
-
The Charming Betsy Canon, American Legal Doctrine, and the Global Rule of Law.
...errors are the exclusive intellectual property of the author. Copyright [c] 2020 by the author. (1.) Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804). (2.) United States v. Palestine Liberation Org., 695 F. Supp. 1456, 1465 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Of course, the court in 1988 could only sa......
-
Table of Cases
...Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), 1203 Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 6 U.S. 64, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), 734, 750 Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 15 L.Ed. 372 (1856), 429, 1215, 1236 ......
-
Unlocking Willpower and Ambition to Meet the Goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement (Part Two): The Potential for Legal Reform and Revision
...government to implement Pakistani National Climate Change Policy, 2012, as fundamental right). 98. Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804). 99. Accord Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 814-15 (1993) (Scalia, J.,......